SB Nation User Blog: ProfessorTodd

Could Charlie Weis Come Back to the Patriots? Should Charlie Weis Come Back to the Patriots?

ProfessorTodd — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:11:59 -0000

The answers in brief: yes, and maybe. More below.

The coincidence of Charlie Weis's dismissal by Notre Dame and the Patriots second-half offensive struggles and lack of productivity would suggest that the forces of nature are aligning so that Weis can take up his old job as New England's offensive coordinator. Currently, the Pats don't have anyone holding that title although quarterbacks coach Bill O'Brien has been calling plays this year. With Weis suddenly unemployed and his old job with the Patriots technically open, could Weis come back? Should the Pats bring him back?

I don't know the details of Weis's buyout from Notre Dame; that is, if he would lose the guaranteed money if he takes another coaching job. I'm not sure that that would even be the biggest issue. Of more importance, it seems, is whether it would be the right fit. Weis, Belichick, and Brady had a glorious five year run and arguably none of the three have been as successful seperately as they were together.Would the magic work again? Brady was a very young quarterback who needed tutoring when Weis was here. Now, he's one of the best in the history of the game. Weis has spent the last five years away from the NFL where things change rapidly. Obviously, no one would suggest that the game has passed Weis by but pro football might not be the same world that he stepped away from in 2005. Most of all, Weis had never been a head coach before the Notre Dame job. After five years of running his own show, how would he handle returning to a coordinator's role. And how would the fit be with Belichick?

Of course, Belichick did a similar thing when Cleveland fired him after 1995, rejoining his old mentor Bill Parcells with New England in 1996 and then following him to the Jets. As Michael Holley and others have documented, the second time around for Belichick and Parcells was not quite as smooth as the first. Weis and Belichick are known to remain very close and surely Belichick would be open to bringing Weis back in some capacity. But does Weis want to do that? Does he want to jump right back into the fray after five tough seasons at Notre Dame? From another perspective, would it undercut O'Brien who seems a promising young coach? Would it be seen as a vote of no confidence in the current coaching staff? And does Belichick, in fact, lack confidence in the current staff?

On the other hand, rehiring Weis would bring some very helpful experience to an extremely young offensive coaching staff. Line coach Dante Scarnecchia and backfield coach Ivan Fears are vets, but O'Brien is in only his third season with the Pats and first as playcaller, tight ends coach Shane Waldron is in his second season but first as tight ends coach after being a coaching assistant in 2008, and receivers coach Chad O'Shea is in his first season with the organization. A coaching veteran like Weis would be extremely helpful to the young coaches to whom he could serve as a mentor and advisor. Weis could also help be a sounding board and take on lots of responsibilities from Belichick,handling things the head coach has probably had to do himself this year with such a young offensive staff. Weis could also help Belichick coach the coaches, indoctrinating them into the Patriot ways. In fact, both Waldron and current coaching assistant Patrick Graham came to the Patriots from Weis's Notre Dame staff. And if Belichick could turn over more of the offense to Weis, it would free him up to concentrate more on revamping the defense.

Will Weis return? It seems there are positives and negatives on all sides to sort through first. And no one should expect, if he does come back, that it will be the magical silver bullet that will return the Pats to their Super Bowl winning teams of earlier in the decade. But it wouldn't surprise me if, even as Weis is being linked to the Bears and Browns jobs and others, he and Belichick haven't already had a conversation about the future, the results of which we may or may not learn about. Perhaps they've already talked it through and reached an understanding as to how and why a reunion will--or will not--happen.

Where Have You Gone, Donte Stallworth?

ProfessorTodd — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:53:10 -0000

No, I don't really mean THE Donte Stallworth, the actual player. We know where he went, how things fell apart for him after his one-and-done season in New England in 2007: a disappointing, injury riddled season in Cleveland and then the horrible incident in Florida where, after a night of drinking, he struck and killed a pedestrian with his car, leading to a jail sentence, a suspension from the NFL commissioner, and the possible end of his football career. What I mean is Donte Stallworth, the type: stretch-the-field, gamebreaking 3rd receiver threat who I always thought was an unsung star who helped make the 2007 Patriots passing attack soar. The Pats have never quite replaced him and the absence of a Stallworth-type this year has been especially noticeable, even moreso now that the Saints figured out that double covering both Randy Moss and Wes Welker left the Patriots handcuffed in the passing game.

Moss and Welker were obviously the stars of the receiving corps in 2007. Welker set a club record with 112 catches and Moss snagged 98 for a 15.2 ypc average and an NFL record 23 TDs. But Stallworth caught 46 passes, matched Moss with a 15.2 ypc average, and scored 3 TDs including the Pats longest pass plays of both the regular season and post-season. What New England recognized was that Stallworth really wasn't a number-one receiver but was ideally suited for the number three role. In '07 Stallworth gave Tom Brady another deep threat and his numbers showed that he had pretty good production for a third receiver. But even more, Stallworth provided a tremendous decoy, forcing defenses to cover him and, by drawing attention away from Moss and Welker, freeing them (especially Moss) to get open and make plays. Stallworth's speed and his deep-ball potential would have made it suicidal for defenses to have double-covered both Moss and Welker.

Unfortunately for the Patriots, they haven't found a way to replace Stallworth's ability to stretch the field and draw defensive attention. Jabar Gaffney tried the number three role in 2008 but he lacked Stallworth's explosiveness and was really more of a possession receiver, a great number four on that '07 team. And for 2009 the plan was for Joey Galloway to come in and handle the number three position. It looked great on paper as he seemed, even at the end of his career, to have great speed and release and was likely to offer, at the very least, a great decoy to draw defenders. But the Galloway experiment failed badly and now the Patriots are left without a true number three, and certainly without anyone who could offer a viable deep threat to make defenses pay for doubling Moss and Welker.

The Patriots may see more of what the Saints did to them Monday night the rest of the year as this corps of receivers lacks a Stallworth type. Sam Aiken is having a nice season but he's still mostly a special teams ace playing receiver. And even if he switched exclusively to receiver he's not the stretch-the-field type. Julian Edelman was a steal in the 7th round and has a great future--but as a slot receiver. Isaiah Stanback is a great and versatile athlete who provides excellent depth but is not really the type they need at this position.

But for next year the guy to watch is Brandon Tate, the 3rd round draft pick who played oh-so-briefly this year before going on IR. Tate has size (6-1 195), speed, acceleration, and big-play production. At North Carolina in 2008 where he was also an explosive, record-setting kick returner, Tate averaged a whopping 23.5 per catch and for his career his average was 20.2. He sounds like exactly the Stallworth-type we've been missing. But of course there are a couple of worrisome things. In 41 collegiate games he only caught 46 passes, so the sample size is pretty small and his role was primarily as a returner. Also, he tore up a knee in his last year, missed half the season and half of his NFL rookie year this season before getting hurt again. We'll have to see where he is physically next year. Still, he was an excellent 3rd receiver at North Carolina on a team featuring current Giants rookie Hakeem Nicks who played the Randy Moss role to Tate's Stallworth. Can Tate reprise that role next season for the Patriots playing with the real Randy Moss? We'll see, but it's an intriguiging possibility.

But that's next year when, in addition to Tate, there might be another rookie or free-agent wideout to challenge for playing time as well. For the rest of 2009--and let's not forget, there's still a lot of football left to play--I'm not sure the Patriots can find that Stallworth-type 3rd receiver with what they have on this roster. So, there may not be much that can be done this year and, lacking a true number three receiver, the Pats will have to make some schematic adjustments to try to get Moss and Welker open more consistently and try to find some way to make opponents pay for doubling both #81 and #83.

Just as the actual Donte Stallworth was a bigger loss than we knew at the time (compounded by the total, complete bust that Chad Jackson turned out to be), the failure to find an adequate Stallworth-type receiver to replace him made it possible for the Saints to do what they did to the Pats Monday night. Let's hope other teams won't be able to follow that model as successfully as New Orleans did.

Where The Patriots Go From Here

ProfessorTodd — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:50:30 -0000

Back to basics: Blocking. Tackling. Passing. Catching. Route-running. Defending the seams. After a beatdown like the Patriots suffered Monday night, they need to go back to the fundamentals and clean up some major, major problems. It wasn't just the defensive breakdowns, it wasn't just the offensive breakdowns--it was everything. You have to go back to December 10, 2006 to find the last time a Tom Brady-led Patriots team got beat by 21 points like tonight. It was brutal, and there's so much to fix--and a short week coming up to prepare for a road game in the division at Miami.

It's probably not an overstatement to say that this next week is the most important one of the season. The Patriots need to bounce back with a win at Miami next Sunday to keep control of the division as well as to get back in the win column. Miami, coming off a devastating loss to Buffalo, is likely to be hungry and desperate and they almost always seem to play well against the Pats in Miami. A loss would be crushing for New England even though they would still have a one game lead in the division. Essentially, the Patriots have five games left to try to fix some fairly serious problems--mostly, but not exclusively, on the defensive side--and to get themselves into a position to contend in the playoffs. If the problems are mostly coming from inexperience, then the Pats have five weeks of practices, tape study, and game situations to work and improve, to teach and coach. And they can probably fix a lot of things, knowing that they won't face anyone as good as New Orleans. But if the problems are mostly owing to shortcomings of talent or schematic failures, then I'm not sure ten or fifteen weeks of additional practice, study, and games will help.

It could be that the Patriots will have to, first, win the division and get into the playoffs and then hope that they can generate a run of good luck and solid play like recent Super Bowl champions Pittsburgh (2005), Indianapolis (2006), and New York (2007)--surprising wild-card teams that got hot at the right time. How ironic would it be if the Patriots of 2009 became the Giants of 2007--deeply flawed but able to hang in there, tough out some wins, and be in a position where a play or two could make all the difference?

Stranger things have happened. But first things first. A short week to work on blocking, tackling, passing, catching, covering. Then a crucial game at Miami Sunday. Maybe by late afternoon Sunday we'll begin to have a few answers and a glimpse of a possible future for this team the remainder of the year.

The Latest Wave of Patriot-hating and Where it Comes From

ProfessorTodd — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:21:53 -0000

The endless criticism and the piling on Bill Belichick has received about the 4th and 2 call has now reached a fever pitch. From coast to coast, pundits, fans, former players, former coaches and others have fallen all over themselves to attack the choice to go for it instead of punting. But the intensity and the sheer number of stories, column space, bandwidth, and on-air time devoted to this play call--one play call among the thousands made in the NFL this weekend--is not just limited to criticism of the call or of Belichick. Rather, it taps into, springs out of, and reflects a much deeper, longstanding hatred of the Patriots and their leader.

We've seen similar crescendos of Patriot-bashing like this three times in recent years. In 2007, the first wave was touched off by "Spygate," which dominated--I mean absolutely DOMINATED--the sports world for the week after the story broke, and never fully died down the rest of the season. Just as it was starting to fade came the utterly baseless John Tomase story (writtten and, incredibly, published without a shred of evidence to support it and later completely discredited and retracted) on the eve of Super Bowl 42 about New England's alleged videotaping of a Rams Super Bowl walkthrough practice in 2002. That story coupled with the Patriots' stunning loss to the Giants ushered in round two of the "pile on the Patriots" as people gloated while mocking the Pats, and bashing the team yet again. And now, after the fateful call and the reversal of fortune that happened Sunday, there is once more an undertone to the howls and rants being directed at Belichick and the Patriots this week. Welcome to the third wave of Patriot-hating---fast becoming the NFL world's favorite pastime.

Each of these three waves has been intensified by a fierce, deep-seated hatred--I don't think that's too strong a word--for the Patriots and Belichick. You can't get upset by things or people for which you have no feelings. And if the Patriots were your generic, run-of-the-mill NFL team, the kind that has a fan base but that never causes fans of other teams to foam at the mouth with rabid hatred, each of these waves would have been much smaller, much less intense, and would have petered out on the shore of the football world and washed back out to sea in the same newscycle. (Seriously, is there anyone out there who sits up at late at night cursing and thinking up new ways to hate the Jaguars? or the Lions? or the Seahawks? Of course not, why would you?).

But the Patriots are different and these great volleys of animosity coming their way now (as during "spygate" and the Super Bowl loss) are visceral and emotional, the products of a well-stoked, long-held agressive hatred of the Flying Elvii and the one in the hoodie. The intensity and the sheer amount of the hating, coming fromso many angles, leads me to wonder why the Patriots and their coach inspire such vitriol. To put the question most simply, why do so many people hate the Patriots?

There are good friends of mine--people who are rational and smart and sophisticated, people who hold down demanding professional positions, have homes and marriages and children, people who are delightful, charming companions and trusted friends--who get almost literally twisted up with rage if I mention the Pats or Belichick. These are people who aren't violent or dangerous, who are kind and decent, who probably don't have mean things to say about too many people. But when I talk about the Patriots suddenly the anger rises and and they become transformed.

So, again, I ask why do people hate Belichick and the Patriots? I'm a historian, not a psychologist, so I have no special training or insight to answer this question but I'll take a stab at it and offer a few possible reasons and invite readers to do the same. Here goes:

Envy of their won-lost record and championships When the Pats upset the Rams in Super Bowl 36, they were the cute underdogs, not the bully on the block. But then they came back and won another title and then another and then went 16-0. Even when they lost Tom Brady and half their starting defense, they still went 11-5. It's almost unthinkable that this team could ever pull the occasional 4-12 record like most teams. Somewhere along the line, the Patriots went from underdog to top dog and then stayed at or near the top. And that's not an appealing quality when fans of most teams see their hometown favorites rise and fall and settle near the vast middle of the NFL. The fact that the Patriots just win and win and win makes them hard to love (for most) and easy to hate.

But the Colts always go 12-4 and have for years and who hates them? There's no better, more intense rivalry than Patriots-Colts but I don't think we Patriots fans hate the Colts (the Jets, maybe, but not the Colts). Who does? Now, it could be that because the Colts have that whole Eagle Scout/Sunday school picnic image going for them,or because they've only played in one Super Bowl and won only a single title (in Indy), they seem less threatening than the Patriots. Still, the Patriots' record and titles alone can't entirely explain the Patriot hatred or there would be such a thing as Colts hatred, too. So, perhaps it comes down to:

Resentment of their secrecy and methods Now we're getting closer. The Patriots are notorious for witholding information and for shrouding their entire operation in secrecy. Getting inside that wall, I'm told, is nearly impossible and the Patriots never, ever, ever air their dirty laundry in public. There are no leaks in this organization and what happens in Foxboro seems to stay in Foxboro. Beyond that, the Pats seem not to care what people think of them. Their public image is not a favorable one and it must drive haters to distraction that the Pats don't seem to care that people don't like them, that public hostility and hatred bounces off this team. Call them the Teflon Patriots--no criticism sticks to them. They probably feed off of that and turn it to their advantage. "Never complain or explain," could be the the organization's motto, and they've won games and championships without opening up their locker room or their organization to outsiders, keeping all they do veiled under a thick blanket of secrecy and mystery.

Again, most teams try not to reveal much but the Patriots go to extraordinary lengths to withold even the most basic information. The sense that they're keeping something to themselves, that they're so stingy with something as straightforward as who's calling the plays, probably strikes many as proof that the Pats are up to no good. Secrecy added to pre-existing suspicion adds up to conspiracy in the eyes of many. The Patriots feed this with their hyper-closed method of operating, never caring that their stony silence is being misconstrued or that it feeds the hatred many have. If it does't help them win games--and popularity with fans or the sports media never does--the Patriots don't care, and a team that operates with such little regard for public opinion is bound to be the object of scorn and hatred of those who would like to think their (low) opinion would have an effect on the Patriots.

But it's hard to sustain an intense hatred for an large organization or for an ever-changing roster of players. To grow and flourish and sustain itself, a great wave of hatred needs a single, fixed, constant target. And if that single target is both wildly successful and maddeningly secretive, misunderstood and not the least concerned with correcting those misunderstandings, and completely dismissive of public opinion, all the better. Further, if that single target also regularly flouts conventional wisdom in a game as driven by conventional behavior as football, then this target becomes almost the holy grail--or, if you prefer a different metaphor, a perfect storm--of rage and animosity. And so, the third reason for the intensity of Patriot-hating:

Bill Belichick's utterly unconventional methods and actions, coupled with his other-worldly success and secrecy, and the way it leaves many more conventional people deeply threatened I think this is the real key, because each of the three waves of Patriot-hatred are personally tied to Belichick. "Spygate" was about his coaching practices and although he apologized, took full responsibility, and paid a staggering fine, many believed that he wasn't "contrite" enough, that he didn't apologize sincerely, or that he was thumbing his nose at the conventional NFL establishment which has long tolerated stealing signs and snap counts but seemingly draws the line at high-tech taping--blue-collar crime is acceptable but not white-collar crime, as several have noted. The Super Bowl loss was also tied to Belichick and the loss was nearly overshadowed by the media furor over his leaving the field with a second left on the clock (after he congratulated the Giants coach), an act which was again deemed an affront to all that was good and decent and, once more, was deeply unconventional by NFL standards. And Sunday night, the current wave of hatred was kicked off with his statistically probable yet convention-defying decision to go for it on 4th and 2. In each instance Belichick did things his way, dared to defy the conventional wisdom of how coaches should coach or conduct themselves. Add to this the other things that make Belichick so clearly a breed apart from the vast majority of people who have had the title of NFL coach: he doesn't look like the stereotypical tough-guy coach, he went to college at Wesleyan where he majored in economics, and he never played pro football. And yet here he is, a deeply unconventional man long at the pinnacle of his profession, one dominated by people who are ruled by convention, who always do things by the book, who would never even think about, say, going for it on 4th down deep in their own territory. The fact that Belichick is so successful despite challenging nearly every bit of conventional behavior or wisdom--the fact that he dares to be so different and cares not at all what anyone else thinks of him--is a thing that could only threaten and anger those whose lives depend on following the conventions and caring only about what others think of them.

So this latest wave of Patriot hatred grows from at least three related sources, all of them united by the man in the middle of the storm and embedded in each of the causes. This is the latest outbreak of the intense Patriot-hating that we've seen before. It will ebb, but then it will rise again at some point in the future, whenever the Patriots win another big game, or another championship, or whenever Bill Belichick defies conventional wisdom in the arch-conventional NFL. Patriot-hating has been with us for awhile and it isn't going away anytime soon. All we can try to do, as fans, is to understand the sources from which it springs and learn to shrug it off--just like the guy in the hoodie does.

Belichick Made the Right Call

ProfessorTodd — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:26:35 -0000

[Editor's Note: I thought this was an excellent read by Professor Todd. While some may not agree with his assessment of Belichick's 4th and 2, he at least presents a very cogent analysis of the game and why our head coach went in that direction]

I know, I know. Everybody on NBC and on NFL network (except Deion Sanders) couldn't believe that Bill Belichick
went for it on 4th and 2 at the 30 but come on....does anyone really think the Patriots (or anybody else in the NFL) would have stopped Manning if they had punted the ball in that situation? He had just moved 70 yards against our defense in what seemed like 25 seconds. What exactly would have prevented a replay of that?

The most effective defense against Manning is to keep the ball out of his hands. That's what gaining a first down on the pass to Faulk would have done, enabling the Pats to take three knees and THEN punt. If I remember right, the Colts had one timeout left which they would have used to stop the clock after first down. But the Pats would have ended up giving Manning the ball with about 30 seconds left and no timeouts left and about 70 yards to go. In that situation, our chances would have been much better.

Let's reexamine the call. The Patriots offense is one of the best around and they moved the ball at will against the NFL's top-ranked defense last night and scored 34 points. They just needed two yards to get a new set of downs and Belichick--justifiably--believed his offense could get those two yards. Maybe you can question the play call itself--Welker looked open slightly deeper down the field, or maybe you run the ball on 3rd and 2 to set up another run or Brady sneak on 4th and inches--but the logic behind going for it there is still good. It's not just that the New England offense is really good and can get two yards but that the effect of a first down there is to keep the ball away from Manning. With a better spot--did they ever show a measurement or the exact placement of the ball?--they would have gotten it, run out the clock, and won the game. Belichick went for it on 4th and short against Atlanta in week 3 at our own 24 (or something) and later explained his decision by saying simply: "I thought we could gain a yard." Last night it was two yards but the logic and the thinking was the same--and, again, it was the best (maybe the ONLY) possible defense against Manning in that situation.

Give the Colts credit for playing until the very end and for making the plays they had to make. Manning is absolutely phenomenal. But the Colts benefited from two questionable calls that greatly aided their comeback: a phantom pass interference call against Butler defending Austin Collie that resulted in a 31 yard gain and set up the Addai touchdown that cut the margin to 34-28; and the spot and the call on Faulk's catch on the 4th and 2.

But those officiating calls weren't where the Patriots lost the game, any more than they supposedly lost it because of Belichick's decision to go for it. Instead, New England lost last night because, while dominating the 3rd quarter and possessing the ball for over 11 minutes, they failed to score on either of two deep drives into the red zone. On the first, Brady was intercepted in the end zone by Bethea after a nice drive. Then, after an even better drive, Maroney fumbled inside the 5 and the Colts recovered in the end zone for a touch back. A field goal on either one of those drives would have put us ahead 27-14 athe the time; 34-14 after the Brady to Moss TD early in the 4th (after Welker's great return), and 37-21 after the Gostkowski field goal at around 4 minutes. That's a three score game and would have required the Colts to score two TDs and two 2-point conversions just to tie. Needless to say, a touchdown on either of those drives would have given the Pats leads of 31-14 on that score, 38-14 after the Brady to Moss TD, and 41-21 after the field goal with 4 minutes left. Game over. But these season-long red zone miscues--while only holding down our victory margin in previous games--killed us tonight. By not closing out the Colts in the 3rd and early 4th quarter, the Patriots gave them just enough space and time to come back.

The loss is extremely disappointing. New England had possibly the best team in the league on the ropes and beaten. On the road. A win would have given us a 3 game lead in the division and moved us right into great position to claim home field advantage for the playoffs in the event of a tiebreaker with the Colts.

But there is much to be pleased about with this game. The Patriots pushed around possibly the best team in the league for most of the game. They moved the ball at will and scored 34 points and the defense came up with two picks and some big stops during the first 56 minutes of the game. Special teams played great. There is a lot about to be happy about despite the loss (although that's all that Patriot nation can really feel right now). And let's not forget that Indianapolis--for whatever reasons--turns into pumpkins at playoff time (especially if San Diego is their opponent). The Colts might lose before the Patriots would have to face them in Indy in the playoffs. But even if the Colts win and there's a playoff rematch at Lucas Oil Stadium, New England knows that it came in here and pushed the Colts back on the heels and (coulda, shoulda, woulda) beatem them. In fact, the Pats did everything except win the game--but, of course, that's the only thing that counts. I doubt they will have any fears of facing Indianapolis here again in January if it comes to that. All the pressure would be on the Colts and I'd like the Pats chances in that game.

Besides how well they played for most of the game last night, there's another silver lining about yesterday's results. The Jets lost again and are now in free fall, coming into Foxboro next week. As a result, even with the loss tonight New England is still two games up in the division. The Patriots already have a score to settle with the Jets already, and now need to exorcise the demons from the Indianapolis game as well. A win next week and we're 7-3 and lead the division by at least two games (if Miami wins) or three games (if Miami loses). Sure, the Saints are great but I don't think Brees is quite as good as Manning, nor do I think the Saints D is as good as the Colts defense. I like our chances in the Monday night game in New Orleans. And then it's a tough road game in Miami and then on to the final four-pack of games against very beatable foes and a chance to wrap up the season with a nice medium sized winning streak.

You do what you have to do to win games and, although in an ideal world we would have so far ahead that it wouldn't have come down to this, Belichick's call last night was exactly the right one. It's not so much a matter of not trusting your defense, it's a matter of trusting your offense to pick up two yards and run out the clock. I still say keeping the ball out of Manning's hands entirely is better than kicking it two him with 2 minutes, one timeout, and 70 yards to go. The game was lost by the failure to score in the 3rd quarter; not by the decision to go for it on 4th down.

Now, let's go run up the score on the Jets. In the meantime, we should probably all just ignore the torrent of second-guessing and criticism from the national sports media that is sure to come in the days ahead.

"The Sky is Falling"/"Don't Worry, It'll Be Fine": Listening in on a Talk Between Two New England Patriots Fans

ProfessorTodd — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:00:00 -0000

All this week, wherever Patriots fans have gathered to commiserate over Sunday's miserable loss to the miserable Jets and their cartoonish, enormously potbellied coach Rex ("My baby's due any day now") Ryan, the conversations have likely been the same. One fan will point to the disappointments and claim the sky is falling. Another fan, more optimistic, will remind the first that it's early, that these are the Patriots, after all, and that things will be fine. Here's how some of those conversations probably sound. We'll call the two fans Sky is Falling and Don't Worry. How many of you have had a conversation like this--maybe even playing both voices yourself in your own mind?

Sky is Falling: It's terrible. All those penalties, dropped passes, can't convert on third down, huge gains surrendered on special teams--I'm worried. The Falcons are tough and the Ravens are just like the Jets--only better. What are we going to do? The Saints scare me. Hell, even the Buccaneers scare me.

Don't Worry: Relax.Sure, the Jets game was awful but as bad as it was we had the ball in our hands late with a chance to drive for the winning touchdown. If just one of those first half scoring drives ended in a touchdown instead of a field goal, then it's 13-3 Pats at the half and it's a totally different game. If two of those field goals ended in touchdowns, it's a 17-3 game at the half and it would have been over. It seems like they played a terrible game but they actually were in it right up until the end. You were kidding about the Buccaneers, right?

Sky is Falling: Why can't they pass well? They throw the ball all over the field but instead of long gains and touchdowns it's incompletions, interceptions, overthrows, drops, underthrows. And what's wrong with Brady? Is he done? Can't he play anymore? He looks off track and the receivers look off track. In fact, the whole offense looks off track--and that was supposed to be our strength.

Don't Worry: Brady's bound to be rusty. Galloway is new. Welker is crucial, crucial to the offense and he wasn't there Sunday. But he'll be back. Brady will round into form. Galloway won't be a bust. Edelman will be a strong 4th receiver. The passing game is out of rhythm now but it will get into a groove soon as Brady gets more reps and works his way back into form.

Sky is Falling: But in 2007 we threw the ball from a position of dominance and strength. No one could stop us. Now, we seem to throw out of desperation. And we can't run either.

Don't Worry: True, but 2007 was a season the likes of which we and the NFL might not see again for a long time. If we keep comparing ourselves to 2007, we'll never measure up. Neither will anyone else. But remember this. We peaked early in 2007, in October and early November. We started to drive 55 like the rest of the league in November and December, lumbered through the playoffs, and completely ran out of gas in the Super Bowl. This year's team will take several weeks to get it in gear, but once it does, it will get better and better, peak late in the season and have plenty of reserves left for the playoff run.

Sky is Falling: Okay. Okay. Maybe the offense will come around, eventually. But what about the defense? Did we have to trade, cut, retire, send away every big name player we've ever had? Guyton, Wright, Sanders, Wilhite--who are these guys? Why can't they tacke anyone? Why do we always give up 5 yard completions that turn into 25 yard plays after we repeatedly miss tackles. Next time we're defending against 3rd and long, we might as well just save everyone the trouble and award the opponent a first down. They always get them anyway.

Don't Worry: Now that's a bit harsh. The "name" players didn't exactly draw comparisons to the Steel Curtain defense last year. Would it be more reassuring if the players missing tackles and giving up big plays were ones whose names we knew? There were problems on defense last year and the changes this year are supposed to fix those problems. And as for "who are these guys"--who was Asante Samuel until we drafted him in the 5th round , coached him up, and turned him into a all-pro? Who's to say the same thing won't happen with Guyton, Wilhite, and the others? You can't stand still in this league and you can't play players based on reputations. Yes, these moves are risky--but so was starting a second year, 6th round draft choice at quarterback after an injury to the starter in 2001. Like so many other risky moves the Patriiots have made, that one worked out pretty well.

Sky is Falling: So, you're saying that maybe the season isn't really over after just two games? That a loss to the Jets is hard to swallow because---well, because they're the Jets and they have that loudmouth bloated whale on the sidelines. But maybe it doesn't mean we automatically lose to the Falcons and the Ravens. Maybe we don't need to cut Brady and sign Cleo Lemon. 1-15 is not likely to happen, you're saying.

Don't Worry: Now you're starting to talk sense. These aren't the Lions or the Raiders we're talking about. They're the Patriots. Not the kick ass and take names 2007 Patriots, perhaps, but still a team with as good a chance as anyone of hoisting the Lombardi Trophy next February. Let's be serious. How many NFL teams would love to trade rosters with New England? How many would be thrilled to take whatever New England ends up at this year? And let's not forget the unmatched value of The One in the Hoodie. Belichick has forgotten more about this game than Rex Ryan, Brad Childress and those clowns will ever know. As long as the Hoodie is on our sidelines, things will be fine. He still knows what he's doing. He's still plugging away. He's still doing his job. And making sure everyone else will be doing their jobs.

Sky is Falling: Well, we can't go 19-0 anymore. But you say maybe we'll peak at just the right time? We might lose a few more games, but we'll have a better chance--and much less pressure--when we get into the playoffs? And not peaking so soon won't give the rest of the league a chance to figure out how to stop our juggernaut, like they did in 2007.We might not be dominant--but we might be something we weren't in 2007: champions.

Don't Worry: I can see my work here is nearly done. I've talked you down from the ledge. NFL seasons last 16 weeks--not two. This Patriots team has a lot of football left to play and nowhere to go but up. Sure, the start has been disappointing. But I remember a season that started off a lot worse, with a 31-0 loss to some team up in Buffalo. I think that year turned out pretty well in the end. And it is still way too early to panic about this 2009 team. If the probems we've seen so far haven't haven't been fixed by November, if the offense is still sputtering and the defense still can't tacke anybody and opponents are purposely losing yards on 1st and 2nd down so they can easily convert on 3rd and 28, then the Patriots are officially in trouble. But let's give this team a little time to develop. Let's give the Hoodie a chance to remind us all one more time why he's as good as anyone ever.

Sky is Falling: Thanks. You've been a big help. You're right. Coach Hoodie does know what he's doing. Brady's not done yet. The defense may come around. There's a lot of football left. And we do play those Jets one more time, too, don't we. Thanks. I'm feeling better. I'm even starting to think that we might just beat those Falcons Sunday.

Not What I Expected, But I'll Take It

ProfessorTodd — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:27:47 -0000

I'll stand up and admit it. I thought it was over. I thought the Patriots were done. I told my wife there was no way New England could come back from 11 down not because we couldn't score but because I didn't think the defense could stop Buffalo when it got to be 3rd and 15 (seriously, are we ever going to stop anyone on 3rd and long?). Mentally, I was already trying to convince myself that coming off a loss with a short week and a road game against the J-E-T-S Jets, Jets, Jets coming up would actually be a good thing. We'd be angry and focused and all of that and have something to prove. And then Tom Brady went to work--again--as he always does and tonight Patriot Nation is happy (and breathing a huge sigh of relief).

It was a sloppy game with rustiness, mistakes, uncharacteristic dropped passes and missed field goals and other errors. But much of that was redeemed by perhaps the most thrilling two minutes or so of football I've seen there at the end. And it all ended with a win. There is plenty to work on, lots to correct, and a short week to prepare for a road game in the division, but I feel really good to get out of there with a victory.

We'll all analyze this game in the days ahead but here are my quick thoughts:

Tom Brady is still Tom Brady. It took him a little time to get going (and he did a pretty good Jay Cutler imitation on that Aaron Schobel interception), but Brady down the stretch looked like...well, like Brady down the stretch. Few things are more beautiful to watch than a Brady two-minute drive.
I hate the throwback unis. The Patriots belong in blue, not red, and I kept thinking someone had switched the TV to the Chiefs game. I'm afraid we've got four of five more games in those things. Give me my Flying Elvis Patriots back. It's just not natural to see them in those colors.
Those roughing the passer penalties were ridiculous. The one on Adalius Thomas was borderline but the one on Wilfork was maybe the second worst roughing the passer call in NFL history, second only to one on Julius Adams in the 1976 Raider playoff game. In fact, the referees must have been confused by the throwbacks and thought they were supposed to steal the game from the Patriots like they did in the Raider game.
Ben Watson may have atoned for last season with those two TD ,catches in 76 seconds. The second one was a great catch. In fact, I thought it was Moss at first because it looked like a typical Moss grab, stretching high to pull it in. Let's hope Watson is going to rejoin the offense this year and give us yet another weapon to use to split a zone deep.
Mayo better not be hurt badly. The defense needs him and he's ready to step in this year and take over that defense.
How strange is it to look out there on the defense and see no Bruschi, no Vrabel, no Harrison, no Seymour? That's an almost completely revamped defense. And, except for 3rd and long, they did a decent job, especially considering that one Buffalo TD came on the interception return and the last TD was set up by the aforementioned roughing the passer call that ruined what would have been a defensive stop.
Did anyone on this site think that one of the most significant offseason acquisitions would be........Tully Banta-Cain?

Those are my quick thoughts. What do the rest of you think?

Tedy Bruschi, Richard Seymour...and Reche Caldwell; Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New England Patriots

ProfessorTodd — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:42:14 -0000

I know, I know. Bruschi's retirement is going to be hard to get used to. Cutting both backup quarterbacks seems risky. Cutting or trading Alex Smith and David Thomas is disappointing as is letting go of promising rookies like Terrence Nunn and fan favorite Ray Ventrone. And the just announced news about Richard Seymour comes out of nowhere. Some of those guys may find their way back to New England on the practice squad. But we Patriots fans are faced with a team in 2009 that will be missing some huge names from our past: Harrison, Vrabel, Bruschi, now Seymour.

I must confess I've taken some deep breaths this week trying to absorb the news--and each day seemingly brought another bombshell of one kind or another. But I've overcome my initial surprise and worry because every time I think about someone being gone from the team, my mind turns back to 2007 and Reche Caldwell.

You'll recall that Caldwell led the Pats in receptions in 2006 and figured to be in the mix in 2007. Sure, New England had acquired Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Donte Stallworth but I figured that Caldwell--who was sorely miscast as a #1 receiver--might make a pretty good #3 or #4 wideout. You'll also recall that Randy Moss didn't play a bit that preseason so we had no idea what he would do (and some speculated he wouldn't do a thing). Welker and Stallworth were new and unproven as Patriots. Then came the news, shocking to me, that Caldwell had been cut before the start of the season.

What were we thinking? With so many seeming question marks, didn't it seem safer to keep last year's leading receiver around? He wasn't great but he was, at least, a known quantity. Moss, Welker, and Stallworth at that point were not.

How did that one turn out? We know the answer: the 2007 Patriots offense became the gold standard against which all future NFL offenses will be measured. Turns out Moss, Welker, and Stallworth were all pretty good. And Caldwell, had he remained on the team, would have been only the #5 receiver after those three and Jabar Gaffney. And yet at the time, I really wondered if cutting Caldwell wasn't a mistake. It took just one game--the season opening blowout of the Jets--for me to stop worrying and realize that the Patriots knew what they were doing.

Normally, I wouldn't put Reche Caldwell in the same post with Tedy Bruschi, Richard Seymour and others. But when I first heard the news of Bruschi's retirement and Seymour's trade and the other roster cuts announced this week, my mind naturally went back to my unfounded anxiety in 2007 over cutting our leading receiver. Things change so quickly in the NFL that what a player did for you last year--or, in some cases, even what he did for you a few weeks ago--no longer matters.

It's a brand new season and a brand new roster. Some surprising moves, some positions that seem thin and vulnerable, and some old familiar faces no longer with us. But I'm not worried. These are the Patriots. They've been operating this way for years and history suggests things will work out pretty well. If we're fortunate, we may look back on the trades and the cuts and the retirements two years from now and say, "what were we so worried about?"

What About a Base 4-2-5 Defense for New England Patriots?

ProfessorTodd — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:09:52 -0000

Bill Belichick never stops tinkering with game plans and schemes and is always willing to try new things so as not to become predictable and, therefore, beatable. This year he's already played a lot of 4-3 defense instead of the base 3-4 that he has taught (and modified) for years. Ever creative, Belichick adds new twists and variations such as the innovative defensive scheme he used in Super Bowl 39 versus the Eagles or the 4-2-5 alignment he has used in the past versus the Colts. But watching the first two preseason games and thinking about the current strengths and weaknesses of the defense, I wonder: what if he now made the exception into the rule, defensively speaking?

What would happen if that 4-2-5 defense became less of a novelty and something of the new base defense for the Patriots?

Think about the strengths of this defensive unit. The line is outstanding and a four man front would put Richard Seymour, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Jarvis Green on the field at the same time (with Mike Wright, Ron Brace, and Myron Pryor mixed in, too). The secondary seems much improved already though with still room for improvement. Think about a starting backfield of Leigh Bodden and Jonathan Wilhite at the corners, Brandon Meriweather and James Sanders at safety and Shawn Springs as the nickel back (with Pat Chung and Darius Butler subbing in).

This brings us to the only seeming weakness of this defense: linebacker. All this may change, of course, but Shawn Crable and Pierre Woods have failed to emerge, Tedy Bruschi may be nearing the end, and Paris Lenon may go the way of Victor Hobson last year (free agent signeee expected to help who got cut before the season opener).

Who would that leave at linebacker if the Pats played a 4-2-5? Why, Adalius Thomas and Jerod Mayo, that's who. Those are two very impressive 'backers with athetic ability, versatility, big play potential, and great talent. They could drop back into coverage, rush the passer, provide run support, and form a powerful middle line of an aggressive new defense. They are clearly head and shoulders above the other linebackers and could be used in all kinds of effective ways if teamed with the d-linemen and d-backs the Patriots have.

Specific assignments and responsibilities could be handled any number of ways out of this defense and the Pats could show different looks out of it from week to week--or from quarter to quarter if they wanted to. On third downs, it could be tweaked to bring in Derrick Burgess and/or Tully Banta-Cain as edge rushers.

But the most attractive thing about using the 4-2-5 as the base defense is that, arguably, it might allow New England to put its 11 best defenders on the field at the same time.

Otherwise, a more conventional 3-4 or 4-3 might keep some of those best players on the bench and use up one or two starting lineup slots with possibly subpar players. This would leave exposed weaknesses that good teams would find a way to exploit, particularly when it counted most.

Will the Patriots use the 4-2-5 regularly this year? It seems like it could be very effective and would fit the personnel nicely. Would it work? I wonder what others here think of the idea.

The Question That Matters Most

ProfessorTodd — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 20:28:01 -0000

The single most important question about the 2009 New England Patriots--bigger than questions about Tom Brady's knee or who replaces Mike Vrabel--is whether or not their revamped defense as a unit can get a stop and get off the field when it counts. They couldn't in the 2006 AFC championship game against the Colts and they couldn't the following (near-perfect) season in the Super Bowl against the Giants. Those two failures allowed come-from-behind scoring drives that cost the Patriots at least one and probably two championships (unless you really think the Bears would have been any more trouble for the Pats than they were for the Colts, who beat Chicago handily in Super Bowl 41). But this off-season New England has moved aggressively in hopes that the devastating, heart-breaking, late game drives that ruined the ending of 2006 and 2007 won't happen again.

There are two methods for improving defensive units--the either/or approach or the both/and model. In the either/or mode, a team can significantly improve either its pass coverage or its pass rush. For example, by improving the pass rush a team can hope that its secondary won't have to cover receivers as long. Or, by fixing the secondary coverage, they can give pass rushers more time to get to the quarterback since his receivers will be covered. The other method is to improve both the pass rush and the pass coverage in hopes that the two will be mutually reinforcing: that better coverage gives pass rushers more time to work and that better pass rushing means that airtight pass coverage forces quarterbacks to take a sack, throw the ball away, or force a throw to well-covered receivers.

The 2009 Patriots have clearly opted for the both/and model.

FIrst, they made a dramatic upgrade in the secondary, signing Shawn Springs and Leigh Bodden and drafting Darius Butler and Pat Chung. Those newcomers, joined with returning vets Brandon Meriweather and James Sanders and second-year men Terence Wheatley and Jonathan Wilhite, should give New England dramatically better pass coverage than last year. There is both more depth and more talent. Upgrades all around.

But the Patriots didn't neglect the other side of the both/and equation. Thursday's trade for Derrick Burgess showed that they did not want to depend solely on better pass coverage to hide weaknesses in the pass rush. Burgess will likely rotate in various packages and schemes as a 4-3 end (when New England lines up that way) or as part of the mix with Pierre Woods, Shawn Crable, Tully Banta-Cain and perhaps others at outside linebacker in the base 3-4. Burgess should represent a significant addition to a pass rush that was seemingly non-existent last season. A healthy Burgess--and that's really the key, isn't it?--should also be an upgrade over the 2008 version of Mike Vrabel, just as Bodden and Springs are a marked improvement over Ellis Hobbs and Deltha O'Neal. If Woods or Crable--either or both--are ready for a break-out season, they could join Burgess and Adalius Thomas coming from the other side to give New England a fierce pass rush--maybe not Steelers-quality but probably good enough given the Patriots' excellent defensive line and improved secondary to represent a vastly improved defense.

But remember, the Patriots can't merely improve their defense over 2008. That should be easy--but it won't be enough. What they have to do to add more hardware to the trophy case is to improve enough as a unit to be able to do what neither the 2006 nor 2007 Patriots defenses could do: get off the field late in the game so Tom Brady can take a knee and lock up another title. Whether or not the 2009 Patriots defense can reach that level is really the question that matters most. More than any of the other questions, the answer to that one will determine whether 2009 joins 2001 and 2003 and 2004 as one of those magical championship seasons or whether somewhere crucial--in the playoffs or the Super Bowl when a stop has to be made, when the defense has to make a play and get off the field--the defense instead gives up play after play and costs New England another shot at a championship.

We can talk about individual players or specific positons on defense but unless both the pass rush and the pass coverage are much better, the defense as a unit is not going to able to make those crucial stops in the clutch that lead to championships. Derrick Burgess won't and can't do it all himself and won't be asked to. But his addition combined with the improvements in the defensive backfield is a huge step toward putting a championship-caliber pass rush and pass coverage--in other words, a truly powerful defensive team--on the field in 2009. We won't know the answer to this most important question ultimately until January or February 2010. But the aggressive way the Patriots have pursued the both/and strategy for fixing the defense shows that they realize that half measures and stop gap solutions won't work and that the defensive shortcomings of recent years have to be fixed if the team is going to win another title in 2009.